NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, I know most of the perople reading this are bush-haters who think it could only be a bad thing that bush was re-elcted, well here's a shock:
for the most part, I agree with them.

explanation:
When was the last presidential assassination?
Ronald Reagan, 1981
before that?
JFK, 1963
before THAT?
um... well...two "gaps" in my theory, until:
William McKinley, 1901
and before then?
James A Garfield, 1881
And of course,
Abe Lincoln, 1865
What I'm saying here is that besides the two gaps, there has been a succesful presidential assassination approximately every 20 years, with the last one in 1981, By my calculations that puts Bush in line for the bullet next.

Am I right, or am I wrong, help me out here!

What I'm saying here is that besides the two gaps, there has been a succesful presidential assassination approximately every 20 years, with the last one in 1981, By my calculations that puts Bush in line for the bullet next.

Am I right, or am I wrong, help me out here!
Yes!!! Thank God.

OK, I know most of the perople reading this are bush-haters who think it could only be a bad thing that bush was re-elcted, well here's a shock:
for the most part, I agree with them.

explanation:
When was the last presidential assassination?
Ronald Reagan, 1981
before that?
JFK, 1963
before THAT?
um... well...two "gaps" in my theory, until:
William McKinley, 1901
and before then?
James A Garfield, 1881
And of course,
Abe Lincoln, 1865
What I'm saying here is that besides the two gaps, there has been a succesful presidential assassination approximately every 20 years, with the last one in 1981, By my calculations that puts Bush in line for the bullet next.

Am I right, or am I wrong, help me out here!

Reagan wasn't assassinated in 1981. He died of alzheimers just last year(?)

Wishing death upon someone is cool and Trendy!

Also, it's worth noting that Reagan's assassination wasn't really successful, you know... he didn't die until a couple of months ago.

OK, I know most of the perople reading this are bush-haters who think it could only be a bad thing that bush was re-elcted, well here's a shock:
for the most part, I agree with them.

explanation:
When was the last presidential assassination?
Ronald Reagan, 1981
before that?
JFK, 1963
before THAT?
um... well...two "gaps" in my theory, until:
William McKinley, 1901
and before then?
James A Garfield, 1881
And of course,
Abe Lincoln, 1865
What I'm saying here is that besides the two gaps, there has been a succesful presidential assassination approximately every 20 years, with the last one in 1981, By my calculations that puts Bush in line for the bullet next.

Am I right, or am I wrong, help me out here!
I remembering reading years ago that any president that was first elected on a '0' year has been shot at and/or assassinated.
Not sure if it's true though.

?!

Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194022.html) Says that he was shot.

besides, Isn't alzheimers memory, I didn't know you could die from it?

the Chimp does not deserve a bullet...

What do you think he should get then?

?!

Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194022.html) Says that he was shot.

besides, Isn't alzheimers memory, I didn't know you could die from it?It says he was shot, which he was, but he did not die from the wound. So it was a failed assassination.

What do you think he should get then?
a banana split...with pretzels :D

LOL check your sources, it says assasinations and ATTEMPTS.

Former President Ronald Reagan died june 5. 2004 at his home in Los Angeles.
He was 93

a banana split...with pretzels :D

:( Why are we being NICE to him? Why is the banananananannanannnanana (sp?) not poisoned? Why is the pretzel nnot coated in arsenic and ricin? WHY?!?!

I have heard of this "curse" concerning presidents.

:( Why are we being NICE to him? Why is the banananananannanannnanana (sp?) not poisoned? Why is the pretzel nnot coated in arsenic and ricin? WHY?!?!
I dunno.

I have heard of this "curse" concerning presidents.
.... and? is it about right? does it work? should blair be elected as presedent when bush is done?

.... and? is it about right? does it work? should blair be elected as presedent when bush is done?
Blair should be shot as well. He's a Bush supporter. He went to war when more than half of his country said no.

I don't really feel like looking up names right now, but every president elected in those years has either been shot or died in office. Some were shot and did not die, one died in office but was not shot. However, I think Bush outlasted the curse for two reasons. First, all of the former deaths of presidents ending in 0 occured in that term. Bush is now in his '04 term. Also, very reliable sources said that his turn was coming with the pretzel incident not long after he was elected; an incident which he somehow managed to elude death.

I can see the trend, and if the trend is true, then it does mean a president is due to catch a bullet.

Not that I think it would be a good thing. It would only create chaos in my opinion, or make Bush a martyr.

Neither of which would be a good thing...

Lee Harvey Oswald where are you??! your country needs you

?!

Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194022.html) Says that he was shot.

besides, Isn't alzheimers memory, I didn't know you could die from it?

If you're breathing, you're not dead.

reagan didn't stop breathing until a few months ago.

therefore, reagan was not ASSASSINATED in 1981.

He was shot, but not assassinated.

If Bush were assassinated, terrible repercussions would ensue. Cheney would take over and he'd be pissed. Use your imagination.

So... you don't want that.

According to the "curse" it started i think in 1800, a native american cheif curse the general that laid waste to his village saying, "all who come after you shall die" or something.

That general was later elected president and was the first to die in office, due to the spell, so all presidents elected in a year ending in zero have been shot or died while in office.

Only Reagan has survied the curse due to modern medicine and some now believe that he lifted the spell or else Bush should still be in line.

With all the terrorisim threats and stuff it eather will be found and everted by some branch of homeland security, some bullet bomb might still hit him or even some disease my ravage his body in the years to come.

If you're breathing, you're not dead.

reagan didn't stop breathing until a few months ago.

therefore, reagan was not ASSASSINATED in 1981.

He was shot, but not assassinated.

If Bush were assassinated, terrible repercussions would ensue. Cheney would take over and he'd be pissed. Use your imagination.

So... you don't want that.


Hell no. The last thing we need is a robot overlord.

Time is linear.. Or is it circular? :D

What do you think he should get then?

He GOT Elected PEOPLE!

Something about that YOU don't get?

I'm pretty sure that the MAJORITY of people are SICKENED by these thoughts!

Just because you don't like someone you wish them dead?

I am TRULY OFFENDED by this thread!

HE IS MY PRESIDENT, and you may feel free to criticize him in ANY WAY you see fit!

But when you start wishing someone dead simply because you don't like or disagree with them, then perhaps some need to look "within" to see why they would feel such things.

Regards,
Gaar

He GOT Elected PEOPLE!

Something about that YOU don't get?

I'm pretty sure that the MAJORITY of people are SICKENED by these thoughts!

Just because you don't like someone you wish them dead?

I am TRULY OFFENDED by this thread!

HE IS MY PRESIDENT, and you may feel free to criticize him in ANY WAY you see fit!

But when you start wishing someone dead simply because you don't like or disagree with them, then perhaps some need to look "within" to see why they would feel such things.

Regards,
Gaar


Amen. These are the same people who want democracy, but don't want it for Americans. The Europeans in particular would rather that they have the ability to pick the US President. That's why they had people calling the residents of Ohio.

Too bad. Not only did he win the electoral college vote, he won a plurality of the general voting population.

So for those who don't like Bush, get used to it.

Although I'm not American, hence i'm very neutral though I was one of the very keen spectators during your elections last year.. I'm quite curious about what the Bush Campaign would be recognized as 10-20 years down the line.

The world has changed alot because of Bush. And the Arab world has became an interesting place with Bush's plan of democratizing the middle East. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon.... darn wish I can link the Times Magazine article. :p

And something I like about the Bush administration. Is the no nonsense attitude. Bush's word is ultimate, unlike Clinton. Heck... Syria is scared shitless. I bet even China has to think twice, economically and Taiwan.

The Bush campaign... It'll be either an utter failure or a complete victory for the modern world in the next 10-20 years.

We're entering interesting times where the future is very uncertain.

OK, I know most of the perople reading this are bush-haters who think it could only be a bad thing that bush was re-elcted, well here's a shock:
for the most part, I agree with them.

explanation:
When was the last presidential assassination?
Ronald Reagan, 1981
before that?
JFK, 1963
before THAT?
um... well...two "gaps" in my theory, until:
William McKinley, 1901
and before then?
James A Garfield, 1881
And of course,
Abe Lincoln, 1865
What I'm saying here is that besides the two gaps, there has been a succesful presidential assassination approximately every 20 years, with the last one in 1981, By my calculations that puts Bush in line for the bullet next.

Am I right, or am I wrong, help me out here!
Why not elect Kerry and not assassinate Bush. That way, things would run a lot smoother, and no one dies. Actually, Warren Harding, elected in 1920, died in office. And FDR, elected in 1940, also died in office. So the theory still works.

Lee Harvey Oswald where are you??! your country needs you
Lee Harvey Oswald is never needed. He was a Castro sympathizer and an evil man.

Blair should be shot as well. He's a Bush supporter. He went to war when more than half of his country said no.
No one should be shot! Reform comes through ballots, not bullets.

He GOT Elected PEOPLE!

Something about that YOU don't get?

I'm pretty sure that the MAJORITY of people are SICKENED by these thoughts!

Just because you don't like someone you wish them dead?

I am TRULY OFFENDED by this thread!

HE IS MY PRESIDENT, and you may feel free to criticize him in ANY WAY you see fit!

But when you start wishing someone dead simply because you don't like or disagree with them, then perhaps some need to look "within" to see why they would feel such things.

Regards,
Gaar
:gundge:
Think of all the lives Bush has cost you Americans in the Iraq war. Okay, that's what, a dozen thousand or so? and now all the british lives he's cost in said Iraq war, accepted, it is certainly less than the american casualties, but still lives that could have been saved, hell, my brothers served in Iraq last year, and they only survived due to some miracle. I know plenty of Americans who would rather have blair than bush, and most of us brits don't like blair either, so take him, have him take over instead of Cheney.

while we're on the subject of war, why the hell DID bush go to war with Iraq anyway?

Moving on...
President Bush is not the brightest crayon in the box either, in fact he's probably a sort of s*** brown. Prove to me that everything that he has done is good for America, Good for Iraq, Good for Britain, Good for the world and I will accept that he is a good president, but for now, Bush is still the most incompetent person in government, besides maybe blair.

I wish Bush dead because I beleive that If he was dead, maybe he would not be able to interfere with the workings of the world. I beleive that If bush could not interfere, then the world would be a better place, ie, no war over absolutely nothing.






Okay.... rant over :)

Why not elect Kerry and not assassinate Bush. That way, things would run a lot smoother, and no one dies. Actually, Warren Harding, elected in 1920, died in office. And FDR, elected in 1940, also died in office. So the theory still works.

Ronald Reagan, Elected in '80, did NOT DIE IN OFFICE!

Haha, I'm not American, but I agree. Bush SHOULD be shot. Although, supposedly, I'm not sure because I don't really care or anything, I've heard that even discussing that Bush should be assainated or something could get someone arrested. Is it true? Thats stupid, if it is. (Bush>) :confused: :sniper:
MUAHAHA I LOVE IT! I'm just saying... It was funny when he visited Halifax {Where I live} people were like YOU SUCK! and stuff... It was fun. Almost everyone I know was wishing that someone would shoot him when he was in Pier 21 and on TV, cuz that woulda been funny. I'd love for him to be shot by a Canadian. I'd be SO proud! :D Toodles

Although I'm not American, hence i'm very neutral though I was one of the very keen spectators during your elections last year.. I'm quite curious about what the Bush Campaign would be recognized as 10-20 years down the line.

The world has changed alot because of Bush. And the Arab world has became an interesting place with Bush's plan of democratizing the middle East. Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon.... darn wish I can link the Times Magazine article. :p

And something I like about the Bush administration. Is the no nonsense attitude. Bush's word is ultimate, unlike Clinton. Heck... Syria is scared shitless. I bet even China has to think twice, economically and Taiwan.

The Bush campaign... It'll be either an utter failure or a complete victory for the modern world in the next 10-20 years.

We're entering interesting times where the future is very uncertain.


Well ,I doubt China would have to think twice - it has 5 times as many schoolkids fluent in english than the entire population of britain. And that's only the SCHOOLKIDS, who, (BTW are taught martial arts). That isn't counting adults fluent and non-fluent (?) and non-fluent schoolkids...

Am I sensing a sudden ammount of 'hate-speech'?

Ronald Reagan, Elected in '80, did NOT DIE IN OFFICE!
True, though he was shot and suffered from Alzheimer's beginning in his second term.

Well ,I doubt China would have to think twice - it has 5 times as many schoolkids fluent in english than the entire population of britain. And that's only the SCHOOLKIDS, who, (BTW are taught martial arts). That isn't counting adults fluent and non-fluent (?) and non-fluent schoolkids...

Uh I meant. Think otherwise about upsetting Bush too much. Alot of their economy and money is invested in America, especially keeping their Remembi artificially low.

To go to Taiwan and if American suddenly put tariffs on China and others... not too sure what would happen. But it won't be good.

Uh I meant. Think otherwise about upsetting Bush too much. Alot of their economy and money is invested in America, especially keeping their Remembi artificially low.

To go to Taiwan and if American suddenly put tariffs on China and others... not too sure what would happen. But it won't be good.
Ah right lol I didn't get what you meant. :P

Oh, and Greedy Pig, the only hatespeech so far in this thread (i think) was my big long one (shut up, u dirty minded gets) about bush.

Okay-so far I've heard a lot of talk from both sides...here's what I've got to say

First, Reagan did die of Alzheimer's-which to clear up the confusion, is a disease in the brain that affects the ability to learn and destroys long and short term memory...it is fatal. There is no known cause, but tangles of protien fibers in the neurons in the brain are thought to be a source for the disease.

Second, Bush won the election by the majority of votes. He won whether it was by one or a million. So what's done is done.

Third, wishing death upon someone is pretty low. Those who said change is through ballots not bullets are damn right.

Fourth, anyone who didn't vote in the election has no right to bitch about him being president. I for one voted, so I have every right to mouth off. Those in another country obviously couldn't vote in our election, unless they had citizenship here. They have a right to voice their opinion-but from what I'm hearing, and from what I understand, most people outside of America hate America-or our government. No it isn't perfect, but what one of your's is? There is always room for improvement. I would like to see change here, but wishing someone dead certainly isn't the way to do it.

Alright-that's my say

Fourth, anyone who didn't vote in the election has no right to bitch about him being president. I for one voted, so I have every right to mouth off. Those in another country obviously couldn't vote in our election, unless they had citizenship here. They have a right to voice their opinion-but from what I'm hearing, and from what I understand, most people outside of America hate America-or our government. No it isn't perfect, but what one of your's is? There is always room for improvement. I would like to see change here, but wishing someone dead certainly isn't the way to do it.

First off, those in the U.S. who "didn't vote" still made a "choice" did they not? They "Chose" to let someone else decide for them.

So who are YOU to say they shouldn't have a "say" in the aftermath, and just how would YOU enforce such a thing anyway?

Secondly, foreigners are Free to criticize our Leader and the decisions WE make, through him in any manner they choose. Going as far as suggesting Assassination and or Murder is going WAY too far.

They are Free to criticize our process, as long as they are questioning the Democratic values behind it and not trying to suggest that their Democracy is somehow better than our Democracy, just because.

But I would like to know how they feel like it is any of their business WHO we choose?

In other words, feel free to debate all other things, but when you have to resort to calling the Majority of a Nation STUPID and IDIOT for their choice, again you are going too far.

I would like someone to SHOW ME where ANY U.S. citizen has done such a thing to ANY OTHER Nation in such a personal manner, as we see here all the time, I'll wait here...

We feel free to debate the decisions YOUR Leaders make, but when have WE EVER questioned WHY YOU have Elected such a person?

Why is it that some Europeans, and many American's, have to make it a personal thing and can't just accept that we obviously do not agree on a few things and or hold differing values at differing Moral levels?

In other words; WE HAVE AN HONEST DIFFERENCE OF OPINION!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

Guys, assassinating Bush would not do any good. He is the pawn of Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and Karl Rove.

This just means Dick would be President, which is just as bad.

First off, those in the U.S. who "didn't vote" still made a "choice" did they not? They "Chose" to let someone else decide for them.

So who are YOU to say they shouldn't have a "say" in the aftermath, and just how would YOU enforce such a thing anyway?


Fair enough-those who didn't vote did make a choice. But as a citizen of this country, they have a duty to participate in the government. However, it is a free country and being such the citizens are free to vote or not vote. Hopefully they do participate in the government in some way...some kind of group-just so they are heard and represented.

I suppose I am just tired of partisan politics and hearing about how America is so horrible. America has its flaws. Complaining about it until one is blue in the face won't change it.

?!

Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194022.html) Says that he was shot.

besides, Isn't alzheimers memory, I didn't know you could die from it?

assassination=death

attempt=shot

get it right :rolleyes:

Fair enough-those who didn't vote did make a choice. But as a citizen of this country, they have a duty to participate in the government. However, it is a free country and being such the citizens are free to vote or not vote. Hopefully they do participate in the government in some way...some kind of group-just so they are heard and represented.

I suppose I am just tired of partisan politics and hearing about how America is so horrible. America has its flaws. Complaining about it until one is blue in the face won't change it.

Actually, they have a RIGHT to participate in our Government.

A Right that SOME of our Founding Fathers described as a "duty", as you suggest, but no where did they actually make it that.

Complaining, debating, discussing, arguing... We call it many different things.

Men and Women have given their lives to see that they can do all of the above and more.

Regards,
Gaar

He GOT Elected PEOPLE!

Something about that YOU don't get?

I'm pretty sure that the MAJORITY of people are SICKENED by these thoughts!

Just because you don't like someone you wish them dead?

I am TRULY OFFENDED by this thread!

HE IS MY PRESIDENT, and you may feel free to criticize him in ANY WAY you see fit!

But when you start wishing someone dead simply because you don't like or disagree with them, then perhaps some need to look "within" to see why they would feel such things.

Regards,
Gaar


Well the thing we don't like is that he's killing people all over the world. Destroying as many lives as he cannot end. Sure lots of people voted for him. Some did so out of foolishness, others out of hatred. No one voted for him out of anything approaching enlightined principles. Bush is an evil person who fights constantly to make the lives of the middle, working, and lower classes as difficult as possible while stealing for his rich cronies.

He deserves death. Those who support him while knowing what he stands for deserve euthanasia.

Fair enough-those who didn't vote did make a choice. But as a citizen of this country, they have a duty to participate in the government. However, it is a free country and being such the citizens are free to vote or not vote. Hopefully they do participate in the government in some way...some kind of group-just so they are heard and represented.

I suppose I am just tired of partisan politics and hearing about how America is so horrible. America has its flaws. Complaining about it until one is blue in the face won't change it.

The point is not to complain until oneself is blue. The point is to complain until others turn blue. Otherwise we'll all be seeing red.

Guys, assassinating Bush would not do any good. He is the pawn of Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and Karl Rove.

This just means Dick would be President, which is just as bad.

Ya, if he was going to get assassinated it should have happened before the last election.

On the other hand, people rally around Bush because they think he's a lovable dullard rather than an evil small minded intolerant asshole. They know that Cheney is a vile opportunistic cyborg. He wouldn't be able to get any support anywhere.

Well the thing we don't like is that he's killing people all over the world. Destroying as many lives as he cannot end. Sure lots of people voted for him. Some did so out of foolishness, others out of hatred. No one voted for him out of anything approaching enlightined principles. Bush is an evil person who fights constantly to make the lives of the middle, working, and lower classes as difficult as possible while stealing for his rich cronies.

He deserves death. Those who support him while knowing what he stands for deserve euthanasia.

THIS ISN'T FLAME BAIT?!?!?!

If I respond in kind, I am likely to be booted, why is it ok for these things to be said but not a REPLY!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

Hell no. The last thing we need is a robot overlord.

Cheney was Secretary of Defense not too long ago. If you think that Bush is aggressive at fighting terror/supposed terror, imagine what Cheney might do.

Can't we just force them both to quit by calling them names like "dumby head"? It worked when we were kids. :)

This is the first attempt at this thread thing.
....yes, it's true I have no real idea of what I'm doing here.

You realise by discussing the assassination of the president of the USA you are now probably guilty of dozens of crimes under Britain's foolish new anti-terror laws? Any Brits amongst you better look out, you're liable to be disappeared.

Here's the myth and the history of U.S. Presidents dying in office.

Myth: Tecumseh's curse. When Gen. William Henry Hrrison defeated Tecumseh's Shawnee at Tippecanoe and destroyed Prophets Town in Indiana Territory in 1811, Tecumseh cursed each Great White Father elected in years ending in zero to die in office.

The curse didn't affect James Monroe, elected in 1816 and again in 1820.

Strangely, the first President affected was none other than William Henry Harrison himself, elected in 1840 under the slogan "Tippencanoe and Tyler, too!", referring to the battle in 1811 and his running mate, John Tyler. Harrison did not dress for the weather during a wintry, outdoor inaugaration, and died of pneumonia a month into his term. Interestingly, Tyler himself narrowly escaped death when a new naval gun exploded while being demonstrated on a warship in the Potomoc River. The blast killed the Sec. of State and several others.

The next President elected in a zero year, 1860, was Abraham Lincoln. He was assasinated in 1865, after being reelected in 1864. So, apparently the curse is effective beyond a first term.

James Garfield was elected in 1880 and shot in 1881. He lingered for several months before succumbing to his wounds.

William McKinley was killed in 1901 in his second term.

Elected in 1920, Warren Harding died of natural causes.

Franklin Roosevelt served two terms before being elected in 1940. He was reelected in 1944 and died in 1945.

John Kennedy was elected in 1960 and assasinated in 1963.

Reagan was shot in his first term in 1981, but lived to serve two full terms. Did he break the curse by not dying?

George Bush hopes so and so should everyone. Otherwise, it's Dick Cheney.

They'll be a test over this on Monday.

?!

Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194022.html) Says that he was shot.

besides, Isn't alzheimers memory, I didn't know you could die from it?

wow.... you gotta be kidding me.. just stop arguing now

besides, someone already tried to plan an assination on Bush... he barely even got to the planning phase.. now he'll probably get the chair for treason..

(notice the word ATTEMPS) in the title of that website

Third, wishing death upon someone is pretty low. Those who said change is through ballots not bullets are damn right.

Well Bush himself actually brings death to thousands, so noone needs to feel to badly for wishing some on him. And none of us are actually talking about going and doing it, but if he, for some reason, died before he could do any more harm to the world I'd be among the first to crack open the champagne.

Fourth, anyone who didn't vote in the election has no right to bitch about him being president. I for one voted, so I have every right to mouth off. Those in another country obviously couldn't vote in our election, unless they had citizenship here. They have a right to voice their opinion-but from what I'm hearing, and from what I understand, most people outside of America hate America-or our government. No it isn't perfect, but what one of your's is? There is always room for improvement. I would like to see change here, but wishing someone dead certainly isn't the way to do it.

Alright-that's my say

I don't think foreigners hate our government in general. As I recall they were pretty favorably inclined towards Clinton. It's Bush in particular they don't like because they tend to be less ignorant and Bush isn't trying to appeal to the worst aspects of their character, only ours.

Well the thing we don't like is that he's killing people all over the world. Destroying as many lives as he cannot end. Sure lots of people voted for him. Some did so out of foolishness, others out of hatred. No one voted for him out of anything approaching enlightined principles. Bush is an evil person who fights constantly to make the lives of the middle, working, and lower classes as difficult as possible while stealing for his rich cronies.

He deserves death. Those who support him while knowing what he stands for deserve euthanasia.

Yep. we should follow the humanistic ideals of Europe right.. (even though their real opposition to Iraq was because they were all bought off by Saddam in the oil for food program :eek: ) we should all have such high morals.

Its no wonder America dosn't consider the input of Europe when additudes such as this fine example run ramepant.

Yep. we should follow the humanistic ideals of Europe right.. (even though their real opposition to Iraq was because they were all bought off by Saddam in the oil for food program :eek: ) we should all have such high morals.

Its no wonder America dosn't consider the input of Europe when additudes such as this fine example run ramepant.

The million people who protested in London weren't bought off by Sadam.

The million people who protested in London weren't bought off by Sadam.

noo but the glorious french government who threaten a veto vote for a new resolution after 441 certainly were

noo but the glorious french government who threaten a veto vote for a new resolution after 441 certainly were

Yes, but last time I looked France wasn't representative of the whole of Europe.

THIS ISN'T FLAME BAIT?!?!?!

If I respond in kind, I am likely to be booted, why is it ok for these things to be said but not a REPLY!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

Flame Bait?
The Euthanasia thing, or the idea that no one voted for him for a reason that was both moraly defensible and well informed?

Well if you can provide an argument why those who oppose war and the dissolution of our civil liberties deserve death I'd like to hear it, whoever thinks that it's flaming.

If you can provide a justification for voting for Bush that explains why his methods are the best ones, why his motives are good ones, and why Kerry would have done an inferior job, I'd like to hear that too.

The vast majority of pro-Bush arguments I hear are always based on intolerance (southern Baptist based hate speech against gays and Muslims), war mongering jingoism, or just a flat out ignorance of Bush's positions on the issues.

Do you support his Social Security plan? His bankrupcy reforms? His 2005 budget proposal?

If you can tell me how any of those things are justified from a moral and practical standpoint I'd love to hear it. Note, I do not consider cultural homogeny or personal greed to be moral reasons.

Yep. we should follow the humanistic ideals of Europe right.. (even though their real opposition to Iraq was because they were all bought off by Saddam in the oil for food program :eek: ) we should all have such high morals.

Its no wonder America dosn't consider the input of Europe when additudes such as this fine example run ramepant.

We have precicly those morals. Do you think for a moment that we'd have invaded if he cooperated with us economically? Well, you probably do, but you're wrong.

I don't care why anyone favors peace. If you favor peace because you're a greedy self-centerd bastard who's getting paid to favor it, well as long as there is no pressing need I'm not going to press the issue. But if this was really about national security we'd have focused on N. Korea which is developing nuclear weapons and Saudi Arabia which houses most of the terrorists in the world. If it was about human rights we'd have focused on Sudan where an actual genocide was going on. It was about money, so we focused on Iraq where the ruler threatened our economy by switching to Euros for oil sales.

Flame Bait?
The Euthanasia thing, or the idea that no one voted for him for a reason that was both moraly defensible and well informed?

Suggesting that not only our President but also everyone that voted for him should DIE IS FLAME Bait, is it not?

And as for the rest of your questions...

Until YOU can acknowledge not only MY Presidents Right to live as well as those who have voted for him; then I am not going to dignify the rest of your argument with a response!

Why should I discuss ANYTHING with someone who thinks I should be dead?

Regards,
Gaar

Why should I discuss ANYTHING with someone who thinks I should be dead?

Regards,
Gaar

Because otherwise how will they ever change their mind?

Suggesting that not only our President but also everyone that voted for him should DIE IS FLAME Bait, is it not?

And as for the rest of your questions...

Until YOU can acknowledge not only MY Presidents Right to live as well as those who have voted for him; then I am not going to dignify the rest of your argument with a response!

Why should I discuss ANYTHING with someone who thinks I should be dead?

Regards,
Gaar

You support the work of a mass murderer. You're an accomplice. By the standards of a political conservative you deserve to be killed as punishment.

I'm a liberal, I don't favor the death penalty. I do think that favoring Bush ought to count as evidence of your mental incapacity to vote. I think that BEING Bush should count as evidence of your mental incapacity to be President.

Unless you can give me some evidence as to why supporting Bush and helping him commit more and more homicide (if people didn't vote for him he couldn't do it) I have no reason to think that you shouldn't hold yourself to your own standards and submit to capital punishment.

Now, about the rest of my questions?...

You support the work of a mass murderer. You're an accomplice. By the standards of a political conservative you deserve to be killed as punishment.

Then perhaps it would be best for YOU to think of me as DEAD.

That is until the next time MY SIDE trounces YOURS in a Presidential Election...

Then perhaps you may learn to afford me the SAME Rights you would want for yourself.

Until then, since I am DEAD to you, there is no need for ME to explain anything to YOU!

Regards,
Gaar

Because otherwise how will they ever change their mind?

It won't work coming from a conservative. They only know how to argue ad hominum. i.e. Accusing someone of having the morally inferior position and then refusing to argue the points.

It's a tactic they've become exceedingly good at because conservatives, almost by definition, always take the wrong side on any issue these days. Because of that they have to try to take whatever reason that they themselves would take the right position and accuse Liberals of having that motive.

e.g:
A conservative would only favor gun control if he thought he was going to be in charge of a repressive dictatorial government, so he accuses liberals of megalomania.

A conservative would only be willing to see his tax dollars help the poor if he himself was among the poor that would be helped, so he accuses liberals of being either the poor who are trying to steal from him, or the rich who know how to avoid being stolen from.

Conservatives would only be anti war if they thought that they'd have to go and fight in one, so they accuse liberals of being cowards.

Once they do this they think they've one by default, because whatever the result of the argument, it won't be deciding the issue, it will be deciding the character of the arguer.

That's why I propose dueling. If more conservatives would get called out on their inflamitory rhetoric there'd be a lot more civil discourse going on. After the initial bloodbath that is.

It won't work coming from a conservative. They only know how to argue ad hominum. i.e. Accusing someone of having the morally inferior position and then refusing to argue the points.


You suggesting people should DIE for their beliefs isn't taking a "Morally Superior" position?!?!

PLEASE!!!

Then perhaps it would be best for YOU to think of me as DEAD.

That is until the next time MY SIDE trounces YOURS in a Presidential Election...

Then perhaps you may learn to afford me the SAME Rights you would want for yourself.

Until then, since I am DEAD to you, there is no need for ME to explain anything to YOU!

Regards,
Gaar

Ha! A conservative whining about rights. That's funny. So you not only support the murderer, you also adopt his style of ironic politics.

And I'm willing to afford you all the same rights. It's responsibilities that I'm concerned about here. When you vote for a politician then you share the blame for everything he does. When you vote for him again you accept the blame for everything he has done.

And no, you don't have to explain anything to me. I would think that if there is anything you can say in defense of the murderer you support you might actually want to, but since there isn't I really don't expect to see it from you anytime soon.

problem he would have been dead 4 years ago

You suggesting people should DIE for their beliefs isn't taking a "Morally Superior" position?!?!

PLEASE!!!
If your belief is that you support a campaign of murder AND (being a conservative) that murder should be punished with death then you are condemning yourself by your own standards, not by me, nor mine.

I'm just trying to get you to explain your position, but you keep trying to make it about what sort of person each of us is and saying that until I justify my existence you don't have to justify your position. In the post that you quoted I was trying to explain how most so-called conservatives use that strategy these days because they're wrong about everything and the only way that they can win an argument is to try to get the other person to be defensive about who they are.

Since you can't justify your position you only prove me more and more right.

I'm just trying to get you to explain your position, but you keep trying to make it about what sort of person each of us is and saying that until I justify my existence you don't have to justify your position. In the post that you quoted I was trying to explain how most so-called conservatives use that strategy these days because they're wrong about everything and the only way that they can win an argument is to try to get the other person to be defensive about who they are.

Since you can't justify your position you only prove me more and more right.

Where have I aske YOU to justify YOUR existence?

It is YOU that says I should die for my beliefs, so in essence it is YOU saying that I need to justify mine, is it not?

And you said ALL, not SOME.

Regards,
Gaar

If your belief is that you support a campaign of murder AND (being a conservative) that murder should be punished with death then you are condemning yourself by your own standards, not by me, nor mine.

I'm just trying to get you to explain your position, but you keep trying to make it about what sort of person each of us is and saying that until I justify my existence you don't have to justify your position. In the post that you quoted I was trying to explain how most so-called conservatives use that strategy these days because they're wrong about everything and the only way that they can win an argument is to try to get the other person to be defensive about who they are.

Since you can't justify your position you only prove me more and more right.

What campaign of murder?

Here are a few questions for your little bleeding heart:

Why do you support the continued oppresion of minorities through your liberal utopia, known as welfare? Why do you keep the poor down in the US? Wouldn't you want them to succeed in life, or is the keeping of minorities down a good way to ensure a large block of voters?

And I'm willing to afford you all the same rights.

So how is saying I should be DEAD affording me my Right to Life?

If your belief is that you support a campaign of murder AND (being a conservative) that murder should be punished with death then you are condemning yourself by your own standards, not by me, nor mine.

I'm just trying to get you to explain your position, but you keep trying to make it about what sort of person each of us is and saying that until I justify my existence you don't have to justify your position. In the post that you quoted I was trying to explain how most so-called conservatives use that strategy these days because they're wrong about everything and the only way that they can win an argument is to try to get the other person to be defensive about who they are.

Since you can't justify your position you only prove me more and more right.

You also have the blood of millions on your hands through the actions of JFK and LBJ. I guess you should just kill yourself now, since you are guilty of murder.

Because otherwise how will they ever change their mind?

I would suggest that, someone with that type of attitude doesn't HAVE an OPEN MIND in the first place and isn't likely to have it changed because of it.

So why bother? They have ALREADY SHOWN ME that they are unwilling to look at opposing views, and hence the reason they wish for their opposition to be DEAD.

Regards,
Gaar

How does someone who proffesses to not condone the Death Penalty make any type of argument about having ALL CONSERVATIVES KILLED?!?!

I guess MURDER is OK as long as it's someone he doesn't like or disagrees with him.

Regards,
Gaar

You support the work of a mass murderer. You're an accomplice. By the standards of a political conservative you deserve to be killed as punishment.

I'm a liberal, I don't favor the death penalty. I do think that favoring Bush ought to count as evidence of your mental incapacity to vote. I think that BEING Bush should count as evidence of your mental incapacity to be President.

Unless you can give me some evidence as to why supporting Bush and helping him commit more and more homicide (if people didn't vote for him he couldn't do it) I have no reason to think that you shouldn't hold yourself to your own standards and submit to capital punishment.

Now, about the rest of my questions?...

your support of communism and it's tyrannical rule and system of concentration camps for those who disagree with communism is revolting.

Bush is a liberator, it was the Dumb-o-crat Carter who helped the terrorists gain power in the Middle East.

I gloat over your being miserable over Bush winning AGAIN! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA we beat sKerry the traitor!!! :)

How does someone who proffesses to not condone the Death Penalty make any type of argument about having ALL CONSERVATIVES KILLED?!?!

I guess MURDER is OK as long as it's someone he doesn't like or disagrees with him.

Regards,
Gaar

simple, for communists, this is normal, they want everyone who doesn't agree with communism killed, just like uncle Joe did in the good ol' Soviet Union, killing them by the millions, gleefully. It's par for the course for leftism.

What campaign of murder?

Here are a few questions for your little bleeding heart:

Why do you support the continued oppresion of minorities through your liberal utopia, known as welfare? Why do you keep the poor down in the US? Wouldn't you want them to succeed in life, or is the keeping of minorities down a good way to ensure a large block of voters?

Well I'm glad to see that you've advanced to actually talking about issues.

Of course you still haven't managed to leave out the invented motivations behind them, but I suppose I can't ask for miracles.

I seem to remember asking you some issue based questions a few posts back. I'll get on these as soon as I see some answers to mine.

?!

Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194022.html) Says that he was shot.

besides, Isn't alzheimers memory, I didn't know you could die from it?

alzheimers will kill eventually.

simple, for communists, this is normal, they want everyone who doesn't agree with communism killed, just like uncle Joe did in the good ol' Soviet Union, killing them by the millions, gleefully. It's par for the course for leftism.


Yeah, that's exactly how it is, isn't it?

Methinks you and Urantia should get a room.

It won't work coming from a conservative. They only know how to argue ad hominum. i.e. Accusing someone of having the morally inferior position and then refusing to argue the points.
Let's compare http://www.protestwarrior.com and http://www.democraticunderground.com, two of the web's more prominent political websites, and see who uses more ad hominem attacks and dirty tactics. Based on my observations, any dissent on PW would get you flamed by many, but at least debated by their reasonable blokes. Any dissent on DU would get your post deleted, your accound banned, and flamed by everyone, saying they "owned another freedom-hater."

You're not making much of a political debate either. So far, all I've seen from you is "anyone who supports this mass murdered deserves euthanasia and anyone who argues against me is an idiot conservative who only knows how to use ad hominem attacks." Look back on your own posts. I see as much ad hominem attacks in them as you accuse the conservatives of doing.

It's a tactic they've become exceedingly good at because conservatives, almost by definition, always take the wrong side on any issue these days.
Socially and economically, I could not disagree more with Bush, but what do you consider the wrong side on any issue? Wrong side as in unconditional freedom of speech (including repealment of censorship laws)? Raising standards for education? Participation in NAFTA and GATT? Medicare covered by private insurers? A temporary worker program for illegal immigrants? What about limiting frivolous law suits (like "your company's logo is a lambda, and that looks close enough to our V. I'm suing for copyright!)?" Or cutting income tax so more of the money you earn goes to you?

A conservative would only favor gun control if he thought he was going to be in charge of a repressive dictatorial government, so he accuses liberals of megalomania.
History shows that anti-gun control people have been rounded up and kill by some governments with strict gun control laws. I'd rather live in a place where everyone had a gun to protect instead of a place where nobody has a gun, but is policed 24/7.

A conservative would only be willing to see his tax dollars help the poor if he himself was among the poor that would be helped, so he accuses liberals of being either the poor who are trying to steal from him, or the rich who know how to avoid being stolen from.
We want to see our money in our hands, not the government's. We help the poor by donating to private charities, who are far more effective than government redistribution.

Conservatives would only be anti war if they thought that they'd have to go and fight in one, so they accuse liberals of being cowards.
Back up your claim, because last I checked, most of the Marines over in Iraq are foreign policy neo-cons.

Once they do this they think they've one by default, because whatever the result of the argument, it won't be deciding the issue, it will be deciding the character of the arguer.
http://www.democraticunderground.com

That's why I propose dueling. If more conservatives would get called out on their inflamitory rhetoric there'd be a lot more civil discourse going on. After the initial bloodbath that is.
I'd duel political opponents any day. Problem with that is only the strongest get their legislations passed, and that leaves the slightly weaker intellectuals in the dust.

Your notion that Bush is a mass-murderer in the world is completely flawed. The troops who died weren't ordered on direct suicide missions, unlike most of the terrorists we're trying to fight. You also fail to recognize the Darfur crisis, the genocide in Rwanda, and the Tianamen Square massacre in Rwanda. If you're arguing that he's "killing" our poor people with capitalist policies, your accusation has more validity in China. Last I checked, socialism didn't do too well either. The peasent in USSR suffered the most out of any resident that wasn't rounded up and murdered/exiled.

What you fail to see is that many conservatives hold paleo-liberal libertarian views. Before you start accusing me (or any conservative) of being a racist anti-gay white supremacist bigot, know that I myself am a racial minority (mostly East Asian, with traces of African), I support Massachusetts in their legalization of same-sex marriage, and the city I live in (Boston, MA--the most liberal city in America), is also the most racist. Know also that not all conservatives support Bush, especially economically, and partially socially. Many voted him in because they saw Kerry as an indecisive leader. Even Dan Rather acknowledges Kerry's constantly-shifting positions.

I would suggest that, someone with that type of attitude doesn't HAVE an OPEN MIND in the first place and isn't likely to have it changed because of it.

So why bother? They have ALREADY SHOWN ME that they are unwilling to look at opposing views, and hence the reason they wish for their opposition to be DEAD.

Regards,
Gaar

No. I'm perfectly willing to look at opposing views. You just won't show me any. I suppose you might have a justification for some of your beliefs, but if you aren't going to present any evidence of it I can't actually assume that.

I guess conservatives take the same approach to debate that they take to religion. Positions and God are both perfect beings that must be obeyed unquestioningly as long as noone gets to look at them or have any idea what they are.

alzheimers will kill eventually.

Yeah, so does Life...

It's called "Old Age".

He lived to be 92 or so and you would like us to believe that Alzheimers was the only cause?

Regards,
Gaar

No. I'm perfectly willing to look at opposing views.

"Looking at" and having an "Open Mind" are two entirely different things.

You have SHOWN through your STATED attitude about your opposition that you have NO RESPECT for them what-so-ever.

So again, why should I bother?

Regards,
Gaar

Positions and God are both perfect beings that must be obeyed unquestioningly as long as noone gets to look at them or have any idea what they are.

YOU are the one SAYING I should be DEAD because of my VIEWS...

So how is that not YOU obeying YOUR OWN "unquestioned" views of your opposition?

Can YOU say Hypocrite?

I thought so.

Regards,
Gaar

Let's compare http://www.protestwarrior.com and http://www.democraticunderground.com, two of the web's more prominent political websites, and see who uses more ad hominem attacks and dirty tactics. Based on my observations, any dissent on PW would get you flamed by many, but at least debated by their reasonable blokes. Any dissent on DU would get your post deleted, your accound banned, and flamed by everyone, saying they "owned another freedom-hater."


try http://www.freerepublic.com, the prominent conservative website/forum that PROVED last year that CBS and Dan Rather were lying (and campaigning for sKerry the traitor). Also, on Free Republic discussions are relatively civilized when compared to DU (Dumb-o-crat Underground) where you get flamed and banned if you don't toe the party line (which is: Bush EVIL Cheney EVIL Halliburton EVIL Ohio STOLEN etc...yadayada).


History shows that anti-gun control people have been rounded up and kill by some governments with strict gun control laws. I'd rather live in a place where everyone had a gun to protect instead of a place where nobody has a gun, but is policed 24/7.

hear hear, liberals have this fantasy that taking everyones guns away is going to reduce gun crime, but it won't, because without a well armed populace, criminals would have a free reign.

We want to see our money in our hands, not the government's. We help the poor by donating to private charities, who are far more effective than government redistribution.

true dat, by my definition, every tax is just utter theft, why should I pay over the top to fund all these lazy bums.

According to the "curse" it started i think in 1800, a native american cheif curse the general that laid waste to his village saying, "all who come after you shall die" or something.

What you are refering to is the twenty year curse of the presidents. It goes that upon being defeated by future president William Henry Harrison at the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811 and thus destroying his plans for a Grand Native American Alliance, Tecumseh put a curse on Harrison. The curse stated that every 20 election years after Harrison assumed office, the president of the United States would die.

William Henry Harrison died 1841 of pnemonia (Elected 1840)
Abraham Lincoln was assassinated 1865 (Elected 1860)
Garfield was assassinated by a man who didn't get a job in the White House (Elected 1880)
McKinely was assassinated 1901 (Re-elected 1900)
Harding died in office. (Elected 1920)
Franklin Roosevelt died 1945 (Re-elected 1940)
JFK shot in Dallas. (Elected 1960)
Reagan shot, survives. (Elected 1980. According to some, this breaks the curse.)
George W. Bush - ? (Elected 2000)

hmm, i think most of you people are wronge. i don't know much about the united states though so i'm probably inacurrate, but here's what i think based on what i know; it's not a good thing that bush was re-elected, but it's better than if kerry was elected. kerry wanted to add to welfare, he wanted to make it so crimenals don't get as harsh punishment, as he was against death penalty. he also voted down the bill to raise armour status on soldiers in iraq, but during one of the debates he had with bush, he had said there was a big problem that soldiers didn't have enough armour in iraq. there is many people that'd deserve to die in america. i think that welfare should be completely removed, if you don't work the goverment shouldn't help you. and i agree that the united states shouldn't be in iraq, but not for the same reason as you people. i think that they shouldn't be in iraq cause saddam hussain was a better leader than any modern american ones. i think your country's media mindwashes people to make them think things that aren't exactly truth, cause the citizens can't see anything other than what the media shows them about that. but, america is gone pretty much anyways, i don't think it will change with all those people that believe about individual rights above the whole rights and free market.

Let's compare http://www.protestwarrior.com and http://www.democraticunderground.com, two of the web's more prominent political websites, and see who uses more ad hominem attacks and dirty tactics. Based on my observations, any dissent on PW would get you flamed by many, but at least debated by their reasonable blokes. Any dissent on DU would get your post deleted, your accound banned, and flamed by everyone, saying they "owned another freedom-hater."

You're not making much of a political debate either. So far, all I've seen from you is "anyone who supports this mass murdered deserves euthanasia and anyone who argues against me is an idiot conservative who only knows how to use ad hominem attacks." Look back on your own posts. I see as much ad hominem attacks in them as you accuse the conservatives of doing.

In this case in particular I'll admit it. I'm going for a fight fire with fire approach with Gaar. You seem to be open to reasonable debate so I'll try to engage on just the issues.


Socially and economically, I could not disagree more with Bush, but what do you consider the wrong side on any issue?

Well then you're clearly not the sort of person I'm talking about. I have very little contention with classic conservatives. It's the pro-Bush neo-cons I'm mostly talking about. I would not be nearly so inflamatory if we were talking about a President John McCain here.

Wrong side as in unconditional freedom of speech (including repealment of censorship laws)? Raising standards for education? Participation in NAFTA and GATT? Medicare covered by private insurers? A temporary worker program for illegal immigrants? What about limiting frivolous law suits (like "your company's logo is a lambda, and that looks close enough to our V. I'm suing for copyright!)?" Or cutting income tax so more of the money you earn goes to you?

The only limit I see as justified on freedom of speech, if it can so be called, is where such speech constitutes a direct threat. Note saying I'd be happy if Bush died is not a threat as I'm not making any claim to try to bring that situation about.

Bush has done nothing to raise standards in education. Just unfunded mandates.

I'm opposed to privatizing government services, there is too much tacit encouragement for corruption in the private sector.

I think that the frivilous law suits could be easily taken care of if a standard of frivolity could be established and if you can prove that the plaintif has violated it then he is guilty of harassment. Passing laws limiting a persons right to sue simply leads to MORE judicial congestion as people sue for their right to sue before suing.


History shows that anti-gun control people have been rounded up and kill by some governments with strict gun control laws. I'd rather live in a place where everyone had a gun to protect instead of a place where nobody has a gun, but is policed 24/7.

When I brought up gun control I was talking specifically about debate tactics and trying to get Gaar to use some reasonable ones. Personally I believe in concealed carry licenses and only banning firearms to violent criminals and those who have certain mental disorders.


We want to see our money in our hands, not the government's. We help the poor by donating to private charities, who are far more effective than government redistribution.

I don't believe in government charity per se, but rather that it is the governments job to take care of certain things because they are not profitable enough in themselves for a business to do it privatly and they need to be done.

Take prisons for example. Can prisons really compete in the marketplace? I've never seen an ad that said "convicted of a felony? come on down to Bob's penitentiary and boozatorium."

I have a broader definition of what falls into that catagory (government jobs, not crime) than most conservatives, I see it as a quantitative difference, not qualitative like with the neo-cons.

Public education benifits society as a whole because it leads to a lower crime rate down the road, and higher wages as long as those students are in school instead of the workforce.

I support efforts to provide free childcare for working mothers because then they don't have to go on welfare to pay for a babysitter. It's more efficient to hire a few daycare workers to care for several kids than seperatly pay each mother to hire a babysitter and is less of a drain on the system.

I support welfare as a supplemental policy, I do not think it should be taken away as soon as someone has any job at all, but should be pro-rated and means tested to encourage people to find the best employment possible and not trap them in some sort of poverty cycle.

Back up your claim, because last I checked, most of the Marines over in Iraq are foreign policy neo-cons.

Marines in general are. I have several ex-marine friends who claim to be going through a deprogramming process.

I'd duel political opponents any day. Problem with that is only the strongest get their legislations passed, and that leaves the slightly weaker intellectuals in the dust.

Well duels are classically fought over matters of honor, not mere disagreement. "You're wrong, the war is a good thing," aren't fighting words, "you're only against the war 'cause you're a pussy," are.

Your notion that Bush is a mass-murderer in the world is completely flawed. The troops who died weren't ordered on direct suicide missions, unlike most of the terrorists we're trying to fight.

I'm complaining about Iraq. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq until we went in. If we were going after terrorists we'd have gone after Saudi Arabia after Afghanistan.

You also fail to recognize the Darfur crisis, the genocide in Rwanda, and the Tianamen Square massacre in Rwanda.

I'm not failing to recognize them at all. My cousin was at the Tianamen Square massacre (I'll take it you meant China) but I was too young to have a cogent political theory then. I'm critical of Clinton's failure to act in Rwanda, and I was suckered by Bosnia, but I think he knew better. I'm pretty sure I already mentioned that if we were invading places for human rights abuses we'd have gone to Darfur in Sudan before we'd have gone to Iraq.

If you're arguing that he's "killing" our poor people with capitalist policies, your accusation has more validity in China. Last I checked, socialism didn't do too well either. The peasent in USSR suffered the most out of any resident that wasn't rounded up and murdered/exiled.

Nope. Unfairly shifting the economic burden onto those who are least able to bear it in order to curry favor with his cronies, but I wouldn't go so far as to call that murder, merely gross theft.

What you fail to see is that many conservatives hold paleo-liberal libertarian views. Before you start accusing me (or any conservative) of being a racist anti-gay white supremacist bigot, know that I myself am a racial minority (mostly East Asian, with traces of African), I support Massachusetts in their legalization of same-sex marriage, and the city I live in (Boston, MA--the most liberal city in America), is also the most racist. Know also that not all conservatives support Bush, especially economically, and partially socially. Many voted him in because they saw Kerry as an indecisive leader. Even Dan Rather acknowledges Kerry's constantly-shifting positions.

I know that not all true conservatives support Bush, and I'm predisposed to a good deal more respect towards a conservative who'll condemn Bush than a liberal who'll embrace Clinton (and most of all to a Conservative who'll embrace Clinton).

I think anyone who saw Kerry as less decisive than Bush, or who saw the arrogant pigheadedness of Bush as a leadership quality, then they were suckered.

He was against a Homeland Security Department.
Then he was for it.

He was against the McCain Feingold campaign finance bill.
But then he was for it.

Bush said he was for free trade.
But then he put on steel tariffs.
Then he was against the tariffs again.

Bush said the states should decide about gay marriage.
Then he was for changing the Constitution.
Then a week before the election he said he diagreed with his party about banning gay rights.

Bush said he would put mandatory caps on Carbon Dioxide.
Then he said he wouldn’t.

Bush said he’d leave no child behind.
But refused to fund it, leaving millions of children of behind.

Bush said he against an independent 9/11 commission.
But then reluctantly agreed to one.

Bush said we were going to war in Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein.
But when it turned out there weren’t any WMD’s, he said the war was to fight al Qaeda.
But then he admitted there was no evidence of ties between Saddam and al Qaeda
So then he said the war was to bring Western style democracy to the entire Middle East.
Now he says we won't impose American style government on anyone against their will.

He said he wouldn’t invade Iraq without a vote in the UN.
But then he invaded without a vote.

He said he was ushering in an era of personal responsibility.

But refuses to take responsibility for all his flip-flops.

hmm, i think most of you people are wronge. i don't know much about the united states though so i'm probably inacurrate, but here's what i think based on what i know; it's not a good thing that bush was re-elected, but it's better than if kerry was elected. kerry wanted to add to welfare, he wanted to make it so crimenals don't get as harsh punishment, as he was against death penalty. he also voted down the bill to raise armour status on soldiers in iraq,

There were two spending bills on funding the troops. Kerry voted for the one that said we should be able to pay for it and against the one that said we should add it to the deficit.

but during one of the debates he had with bush, he had said there was a big problem that soldiers didn't have enough armour in iraq.

Bush got the funding, but the troops didn't get the armor.

there is many people that'd deserve to die in america. i think that welfare should be completely removed, if you don't work the goverment shouldn't help you.

Very few of the people on welfare are on it for the sake of sheer laziness. The unfailing trend of a labor market will be for wages to go down to a subsistence level. Right now the labor market doesn't even support a subsistence income. It is ultimatly harmful to society as a whole if conditions are such that people cannot support themselves no matter how hard they work, so it is the government's job to either bring wages up or make subsistence easier to buy. You may be so cold hearted as to think that the poor deserve their poverty, but there is also a practical issue. The expense of a prison system for all the criminals that a failing labor market will produce is more expensive than any reasonably executed effort to raise living standards.

and i agree that the united states shouldn't be in iraq, but not for the same reason as you people. i think that they shouldn't be in iraq cause saddam hussain was a better leader than any modern american ones.

Well noone running the country now actually wants anything good to happen to it. They just want its oil to come to America at low prices. At least Hussein was able to keep the terrorists out.

i think your country's media mindwashes people to make them think things that aren't exactly truth, cause the citizens can't see anything other than what the media shows them about that. but, america is gone pretty much anyways, i don't think it will change with all those people that believe about individual rights above the whole rights and free market.

It's funny that you criticize the brainwashing of our media, but your appraisal of the Bush Kerry race sounded just like a George Jr. ad.

"Looking at" and having an "Open Mind" are two entirely different things.

You have SHOWN through your STATED attitude about your opposition that you have NO RESPECT for them what-so-ever.


I have seen little reason to respect your views. You're pro-Bush and every pro-Bush argument I've ever heard is based on flat out factually incorrect arguments or morally repulsive ones.

You claim that my never having seen a pro-Bush argument that is neither morally repulsive nor demonstrably wrong means that if you have one then I won't give it a fair hearing. How am I supposed to demonstrate my ability to give your views a fair hearing if you won't present them? Until you do I can only surmise that you know your views to be indefensible.


So again, why should I bother?

I doubt your views are so complex that the effort of typing them is sooooo much more exhausting than all the typing it has taken you to repeatedly tell me "you're just to closed minded listen anyways so I won't tell you." So really it's more bother to keep asking me why you should bother than it would be to just go ahead and bother. And since you've proven yourself willing to undertake that sort of bother then there's no reason left why you shouldn't provide an answer to the questions I presented you earlier and a defense of your position.

I have seen little reason to respect your views. You're pro-Bush and every pro-Bush argument I've ever heard is based on flat out factually incorrect arguments or morally repulsive ones.

You claim that my never having seen a pro-Bush argument that is neither morally repulsive nor demonstrably wrong means that if you have one then I won't give it a fair hearing. How am I supposed to demonstrate my ability to give your views a fair hearing if you won't present them? Until you do I can only surmise that you know your views to be indefensible.

I doubt your views are so complex that the effort of typing them is sooooo much more exhausting than all the typing it has taken you to repeatedly tell me "you're just to closed minded listen anyways so I won't tell you." So really it's more bother to keep asking me why you should bother than it would be to just go ahead and bother. And since you've proven yourself willing to undertake that sort of bother then there's no reason left why you shouldn't provide an answer to the questions I presented you earlier and a defense of your position.

I had a thread around that was titled "Life During Wartime"...

It was rather lengthy and described, in great detail, why I feel as I do and presents MANY arguments as to why.

I am not sure why it is no longer available, but NO ONE from YOUR SIDE responded to it AT ALL...

So it seemed to me that NONE OF YOU were able to REFUTE ANY of the points I made with it.

If you read that post and then have some questions or something you would like to discuss then we can, otherwise... I have MADE MY argument and no one refuted a WORD!

Regards,
Gaar

I am not sure why it is no longer available
It's right here:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8412139

And you're right, nobody has replied yet.

1. Very few of the people on welfare are on it for the sake of sheer laziness. The unfailing trend of a labor market will be for wages to go down to a subsistence level. Right now the labor market doesn't even support a subsistence income. It is ultimatly harmful to society as a whole if conditions are such that people cannot support themselves no matter how hard they work, so it is the government's job to either bring wages up or make subsistence easier to buy. You may be so cold hearted as to think that the poor deserve their poverty, but there is also a practical issue. The expense of a prison system for all the criminals that a failing labor market will produce is more expensive than any reasonably executed effort to raise living standards.

2. Well noone running the country now actually wants anything good to happen to it. They just want its oil to come to America at low prices. At least Hussein was able to keep the terrorists out.

3. It's funny that you criticize the brainwashing of our media, but your appraisal of the Bush Kerry race sounded just like a George Jr. ad.


1. if they can't work hard enough to support themselves, then they aren't worth the government supporting them. anyone can support themselves if they work for it. and about the prison thing, don't send them to jail, kill them immediatly.

2. i agree with you about that. why does america need oil anyways?

3. i'm against both of them, so it's not really for george bush or kerry, i'm neither democratic nor republican, if i lived there i wouldn't vote for either of them. everyone always forgets the authoritarian communists. did anyone even run who's beliefs were toward that?

It's right here:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8412139

And you're right, nobody has replied yet.

Thank you for the link Neo...

I don't know where they go once they go off the end of the last page.

Regards,
Gaar

2. i agree with you about that. why does america need oil anyways?


Uhhh...

Maybe because we burn more than 8 Billion Barrels of it yearly to power our Economy?

But we don't HAVE to get it from ANYONE ELSE, any more, if we don't want to...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

Regards,
Gaar

Blair should be shot as well. He's a Bush supporter. He went to war when more than half of his country said no.

so? it's not his fault half of your country are cowering crapweasels who would rather not hurt the terrorists feelings.

Well the thing we don't like is that he's killing people all over the world. Destroying as many lives as he cannot end. Sure lots of people voted for him. Some did so out of foolishness, others out of hatred. No one voted for him out of anything approaching enlightined principles. Bush is an evil person who fights constantly to make the lives of the middle, working, and lower classes as difficult as possible while stealing for his rich cronies.

He deserves death. Those who support him while knowing what he stands for deserve euthanasia.

piss off liberal idiot, peacenik, appeaser, Chamberlain, terrorist lover that you are

when is your single braincell going to wake up to the fact that terrorists cannot be negotiated with? that you cannot sit around a campfire with them and sing 'Kumbaya'

why did you not complain when Saddam attacked and invaded Kuwait? or when some African despot decides to attack another country? or when your socialist hero Joe Stalin killed millions?

because you, like every leftist sumbitch have one motto: "Murder is alright when we do it in the name of the communist state" :rolleyes:

piss off liberal idiot, peacenik, appeaser, Chamberlain, terrorist lover that you are

when is your single braincell going to wake up to the fact that terrorists cannot be negotiated with? that you cannot sit around a campfire with them and sing 'Kumbaya'

why did you not complain when Saddam attacked and invaded Kuwait? or when some African despot decides to attack another country? or when your socialist hero Joe Stalin killed millions?

because you, like every leftist sumbitch have one motto: "Murder is alright when we do it in the name of the communist state" :rolleyes:

Nuh-uh. My motto is, "Mental patients are WAY more interesting than so-called 'normal' people." That, and "Hakuna matata!"

and don't even think about taking away my guns! from my cold dead hands you shall have to pry them! bring it on!

Domici, I'm seeing some rather aggravatory "debating" techniques here from you. Having read this thread, I know you're capable of civil debate, and as you have admitted that you are "using a "fight fire with fire" technique with Gaar", you are purposefully altering your standards to aggravate him.

This is, obviously, bordering on flamebait or trolling, and it would be in the best interests of all concerned if you were to debate in a civil fashion with everyone, no matter what you may think of their argument (it'll also make you personally look a lot better).

Further offences will result in official warning or ban.

Having discussed with my fellow Moderators, we have come to the conclusion that Hitlerreich's continued inflammatory postings in this and other threads warrant a one-week ban.

~ Tsar the Mod.

1. if they can't work hard enough to support themselves, then they aren't worth the government supporting them. anyone can support themselves if they work for it. and about the prison thing, don't send them to jail, kill them immediatly.

I could barely sit through Les Miserable the musical, I don't intend to see my country turn into the live version. Especially when the soundtrack is likely to be hip-hop.

I had a thread around that was titled "Life During Wartime"...

It was rather lengthy and described, in great detail, why I feel as I do and presents MANY arguments as to why.

I am not sure why it is no longer available, but NO ONE from YOUR SIDE responded to it AT ALL...

So it seemed to me that NONE OF YOU were able to REFUTE ANY of the points I made with it.

If you read that post and then have some questions or something you would like to discuss then we can, otherwise... I have MADE MY argument and no one refuted a WORD!

Regards,
Gaar


You posted a link to a 15 page article and expected people to sit through it? You realize noone gets paid to read this forum right?

Well, I've copied the article and I'll get back to you when I've digested it.
Until then... :bump:

You posted a link to a 15 page article and expected people to sit through it? You realize noone gets paid to read this forum right?

Well, I've copied the article and I'll get back to you when I've digested it.
Until then... :bump:

And you were the one saying I had already posted enough to have clearly stated my opinion already, were you not?

And think! That is just about my opinion on the Iraq War!

:p

Regards,
Gaar

This thread is absolutely rediculous.

First off, in 1981 Regan was shot, but not assasinated, by John Hinkle, of which wanted to impress Jody Foster (if my memory serves me well). He died just this past year due to old age.

This whole thread sounds like something a three year old would say. Not only is wishing death upon someone sadistic, but it's also childish.

Everyone saying that another human being should be shot in cold-blood should seriously get some mental help.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. It is truly a sad day for humanity.

If memory serves me right I want to say that Ford was shot at as well and I think Carter and Johnson, hmmm, not sure. Granted everyone should know that there have been several attempts on many presidents that most of us have never heard of, e.g. the failed Nixon assassin that tried to fly a plane into the White House.

And you were the one saying I had already posted enough to have clearly stated my opinion already, were you not?

And think! That is just about my opinion on the Iraq War!

:p

Regards,
Gaar

Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is 471 pages long. I can still cite it in less than a page to explain why Native Americans could not possibly have developed agriculture based civilizations in North America prior to the arrival of Europeans.

"North America had no usable grain."

I'm fairly sure you could have done the same in giving me a single reason on why anyone would favor the Iraq war in particular or the Neo-con agenda in general.

This whole thread sounds like something a three year old would say. Not only is wishing death upon someone sadistic, but it's also childish.

No, wishing a painful death is sadistic. A quick one is merely callous.

Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is 471 pages long. I can still cite it in less than a page to explain why Native Americans could not possibly have developed agriculture based civilizations in North America prior to the arrival of Europeans.

"North America had no usable grain."

I'm fairly sure you could have done the same in giving me a single reason on why anyone would favor the Iraq war in particular or the Neo-con agenda in general.

Not and be able to keep you from coming back with some snide remark because you didn't fully understand my position...

Done reading ALREADY?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Ok, this thread started out ok. It talked about the fact that every President that was elected on the year ending in 0, was shot, or died in office. Now it turned into a death threat thread. I hope you people realize that the mods here can get your IP address, and they can and SHOULD turn you in to the authorities. IF this was my forum, and I saw this kind of posting, I would ban yall, report your IPs, and lock this thread. Death threats are not to be taken lightly.



Mods please lock this thread and report the IPs of poster who are making death threats to Mr. Bush.

Not and be able to keep you from coming back with some snide remark because you didn't fully understand my position...


You know, like...

"No, wishing a painful death is sadistic. A quick one is merely callous. "

Regards,
Gaar

Mods please lock this thread and report the IPs of poster who are making death threats to Mr. Bush.
The mods have already seen the post, and they have already done as they saw fit. I'm rather surprised not much happened, but they do have the final say...

The mods have already seen the post, and they have already done as they saw fit. I'm rather surprised not much happened, but they do have the final say...

I just don't find it funny or entertaining that people are making death threats agaisnt an actual human being. I mean I don't like Bush's policies either, but I don't go around thinking "I wish someone would shoot the S.O.B." I change the government not by bullet, but by ballot. As someone else on this thread has said.

Thank God you all live in a nation
where you can post those kinds of views,
I come from a nation where you cant even
use a personal computer, and there are still people
who defend it as some kind of paradise and saint.

Santa-nita.

Although I personally like President Bush, I must make this point:

If he were to be shot, or even assassinated, it would give him or his successor an iron-clad excuse to tighten security. I guarantee you that they could link an assassination attempt to Islamic militants, whether it is true or not. After this is done, they'd have all of the justification they need for upping military spending, tapping phones, or spiriting away suspicious individuals to Guantanamo Bay.

You don't like the Patriot Act? They'd just be getting started.

I just don't find it funny or entertaining that people are making death threats agaisnt an actual human being. I mean I don't like Bush's policies either, but I don't go around thinking "I wish someone would shoot the S.O.B." I change the government not by bullet, but by ballot. As someone else on this thread has said.

I made a point about this earlier. No one is threatening him. A threat denotes intent. What's being discussed hear is whether or not anyone would be happy or sad over his hypothetical death.

I'm a bit picky about certain uses of language, especially those where loose use of a word means the difference between shared opinions and jail time.

Not and be able to keep you from coming back with some snide remark because you didn't fully understand my position...

Done reading ALREADY?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

My life does not revolve around your favorite articles. I'll get to it when I get to it. At 15 pages I think you'll understand that I may not be in any rush for reasons that have nothing to do with reluctance to challenge the material.

My life does not revolve around your favorite articles. I'll get to it when I get to it. At 15 pages I think you'll understand that I may not be in any rush for reasons that have nothing to do with reluctance to challenge the material.

You asked for my opinion, and I gave it to you...

Again, you seem to like the quick replies, because there is enough ambiguity for you to berate their opinion.

I believe once you are done reading there will be no misunderstanding, on your part, of my position.

Regards,
Gaar

Thank God you all live in a nation
where you can post those kinds of views,
I come from a nation where you cant even
use a personal computer, and there are still people
who defend it as some kind of paradise and saint.

Santa-nita.

Where are you from? Do tell.

*needs a "..." smilie* So, so far what I'm hearing is "Don't kill Bush, it's sick murder", "Kill cheney he will destroy america more than anyone ever has", "Get rid of bush, he's ruining america", "Kerry's policies are dumber than bush's" and so, I have come to the conclusion...


In order to guarantee the safety of america, Cheney should be permanently removed from america, this safeguards the rest of the world best if he is killed, i suggest something quick (I don't care :P). there should be a presidential overtake, in that bush is removed from his presidential position, and removed from politics altogether if possible, and Kerry should be removed from politics...


But then who does that leave to rule america? I suggest Blair, as Britain doesn't want him, But america seems to love him (is this right?).
Therefore britain will be w/o a prime minister. :D Elizabeth Regina!

You asked for my opinion, and I gave it to you...

Again, you seem to like the quick replies, because there is enough ambiguity for you to berate their opinion.

I believe once you are done reading there will be no misunderstanding, on your part, of my position.

Regards,
Gaar

I've read your article and all I saw is an unsupported somewhat poetic likening of the Iraq war on Saddam to the Civil War against slavery. It was not only totally irrelevant, it was completely pointless. It was just an effort to quash criticism by plucking the patriotic heartstrings of the reader. I had to check my media player to make sure that "Doon for Lack of Johnny" (the Lassie theme song) wasn't actually playing.

It does nothing to answer my criticism of the "we went to war to set the Iraqis free" argument by pointing out that if we really went there to fight for civil rights then we'd have started in several other places first.

It does nothing to answer my criticism of the "Iraq was a threat to our nation" argument by pointing out that there are several other countries that posed actual threats where Iraq did not.

And the effort to point out that the Southerners thought of Lincoln as the Northerners now think of Bush was in particularly bad (not to mention stupid and pointless) taste. Almost on par with claiming that renaming French Fries "Freedom Fries" is following the precident of renaming sourkraut "Liberty Cabbage" when we're not at war with France but we were at war with Germany. A real precident would be if we had renamed Swiss Cheese "pick-a-fuckin'-side-you-holey-mother-fuckers cheese"

If you can dredge a single cogent argument out of that piece of sentimental drivel please do so, but stop wasting my time by pretending that what you're actually presenting me with is a careful well reasoned argument supporting an apparantly indefensible position when all you're presenting me with is 15 pages of bad poetry.

And you have yet to provide a defense for Bush's Social Security reform, bankrupcy reform, the war in Iraq, the failure to act in Darfur and North Korea, his blaming the deficit which he created on Clinton who created an economic boom after inhereting Bush Sr. recession or his unwillingness to roll back the ill-advised tax cuts which are bankrupting the nation.

?!

Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194022.html) Says that he was shot.

besides, Isn't alzheimers memory, I didn't know you could die from it?
Alzheimer's is massive death of brain tissue. I would think that would be fatal, but then I read your posts.

It is always good for the US, and its always an all around good time when a President gets assassinated. :rolleyes:

It is always good for the US, and its always an all around good time when a President gets assassinated. :rolleyes:
Lincoln for Grant? No thx.

So, you approve of murder huh? Well, why don't you move just a few feet to the left... no, my left, not yours... yes, right there... :sniper:

So, you approve of murder huh? Well, why don't you move just a few feet to the left... no, my left, not yours... yes, right there... :sniper:
Please Liesurlann, don't feed the trolls :)

Lincoln for Grant? No thx.

Grant most likely would have become President regardless of Lincoln's assassination.

This is the third thread I have seen on NS dedicated to the idea that the assassination of President Bush would be a good thing. That is just pure stupidity.

*snip*

Does it surprise me that you were unable to see any of the MANY points made in the Article, no...

Do I care that you lack the understanding it takes to get something out of the Article, not really.

Am I through trying to discuss my view of why we went to War, with someone who is so obviously bent on his own perspective of the issue, yes.

YOU asked for MY Opinion on the War and I gave it to you, quit complaining that you HAD to read it, because you ASKED for it, did you not?

Regards,
Gaar

Grant most likely would have become President regardless of Lincoln's assassination.

This is the third thread I have seen on NS dedicated to the idea that the assassination of President Bush would be a good thing. That is just pure stupidity.
Well, we would have had a few more years of the man who was arguably the best President ever, and postponed the man who is almost always in the bottom 10.

Grant most likely would have become President regardless of Lincoln's assassination.

This is the third thread I have seen on NS dedicated to the idea that the assassination of President Bush would be a good thing. That is just pure stupidity.

I will happily agree with you there, but the Reconstruction period would likely have been significantly easier if Lincoln was around a little bit longer. And assasination isn't the answer. But I do feel, strongly, that Bush should NOT be President. Not that I really feel like debating the case at 2:40 am.

Well, we would have had a few more years of the man who was arguably the best President ever, and postponed the man who is almost always in the bottom 10.

Very true. Ironically, the rebuilding of the South and pretty much all of the US was set back terribly by Lincoln's assassination. If Booth was smart enough to understand the reverberations of his actions he never would have done it.

I will happily agree with you there, but the Reconstruction period would likely have been significantly easier if Lincoln was around a little bit longer. And assasination isn't the answer. But I do feel, strongly, that Bush should NOT be President. Not that I really feel like debating the case at 2:40 am.
I didn't like Clinton. I wouldn't have liked Kerry. I don't think either of them deserves a bullet. Call me crazy, but you know, murder of innocents has never been my bag.

I will happily agree with you there, but the Reconstruction period would likely have been significantly easier if Lincoln was around a little bit longer. And assasination isn't the answer. But I do feel, strongly, that Bush should NOT be President. Not that I really feel like debating the case at 2:40 am.

Oh, I am not a very proud to call him President, either. But espousing the murder of any US President is an affront to the office, the nation, and the underlying spirit of democracy.

Very true. Ironically, the rebuilding of the South and pretty much all of the US was set back terribly by Lincoln's assassination. If Booth was smart enough to understand the reverberations of his actions he never would have done it.
I sorta feel sorry for him. Here's a man who was trying to do a service to his state and nation, and cripples himself in the process, limps away from the scene, and is later burned to death, only to realize in whatever afterlife there is that he probably further weakened the South, the Union as a whole, and would forever be remembered as a traitor and a fool.

I sorta feel sorry for him. Here's a man who was trying to do a service to his state and nation, and cripples himself in the process, limps away from the scene, and is later burned to death, only to realize in whatever afterlife there is that he probably further weakened the South, the Union as a whole, and would forever be remembered as a traitor and a fool.

I thought they smoked him out and then shot him.

I sorta feel sorry for him. Here's a man who was trying to do a service to his state and nation, and cripples himself in the process, limps away from the scene, and is later burned to death, only to realize in whatever afterlife there is that he probably further weakened the South, the Union as a whole, and would forever be remembered as a traitor and a fool.

The events following his actions, his death, and any possible post-mordem guilt he may have experienced are less than he deserved.

Responses:

-No, I would never condone murder of the innocent. Even world leaders, awful or great as they may be, deserve to die in their own time.
-No, I don't like Bush. But I never said I liked Kerry better. My political views are weird, badly thought out and in general completely all over the place. But one thing I'm positive of is this- we've got absolutely no candidates for Presidency that I would consider a truely great world leader. Or even a surprisingly good one. The country is simply too divided for effectiveness, in many ways, and perhaps that's why we can't find a leader worth keeping.
-Booth had many mental issues. Since I have problems of my own, I can understand his madness- to a point. When it passes into hatred and murder, however, I cease to be quite as forgiving.

I thought they smoked him out and then shot him.
Depends on what you listen to. It's generally accepted that his hiding place was set on fire, but whether he was burned alive, shot, or escaped to reappear like Elvis for the next 60 years is often debated.

-Booth had many mental issues. Since I have problems of my own, I can understand his madness- to a point. When it passes into hatred and murder, however, I cease to be quite as forgiving.

I thought Booth was of full mental function. He had a few co-conspirators and they had a thought out plan to assassinate a few of the major figures in the government.

I thought Booth was of full mental function. He had a few co-conspirators and they had a thought out plan to assassinate a few of the major figures in the government.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Booth suffered from depression and the like. Not madness as I said, true, but still an issue stemming from his Civil War experiences that he never addressed. Depression impairs function in some sense, I suppose, but not significantly and not in terms of your ability to reason logically.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that Booth suffered from depression and the like. Not madness as I said, true, but still an issue stemming from his Civil War experiences that he never addressed. Depression impairs function in some sense, I suppose, but not significantly and not in terms of your ability to reason logically.

He actually never served in the militatry. But as a traveling actor, he was able to sneak medical and other material across the Mason Dixie line. He was able to escape the draft by paying someone else to go in his place. Booth was a very famous name of the time. Booth is like The Baldwins of today. Although, I do think he did have some mental problems.

He actually never served in the militatry. But as a traveling actor, he was able to sneak medical and other material across the Mason Dixie line. He was able to escape the draft by paying someone else to go in his place. Booth was a very famous name of the time. Booth is like The Baldwins of today. Although, I do think he did have some mental problems.

*mutters about clarity* I should never argue politics at 3 am, and this is proof. 'Civil War experience' did not mean fighting- he was simply quite traumatized by the whole thing, since it WAS going on around his ears. I'd give more details if I could remember that blasted documentary, but unfortunately my memory ceases to be at this time of night. Well, make that morning. Apologies about the bad phrasing.

Does it surprise me that you were unable to see any of the MANY points made in the Article, no...

Do I care that you lack the understanding it takes to get something out of the Article, not really.

Am I through trying to discuss my view of why we went to War, with someone who is so obviously bent on his own perspective of the issue, yes.

YOU asked for MY Opinion on the War and I gave it to you, quit complaining that you HAD to read it, because you ASKED for it, did you not?

Regards,
Gaar

I asked you for a defense of the war. I didn't ask you for some sort of emotional whining appeal to my heartstrings about why you really really love it, I asked you to demonstrate to me why it's a good idea.

You couldn't do that.

The author of your favorite article couldn't do that.

You can't take anything out of that article and make it relatable because there's nothing to relate to.

The article doesn't present any arguments for why the war was a good idea, it presents a bunch of false analogies and relies on the reader getting so patriotically emotional that he forgets that it offers nothing of logic or consequense.

In you that article did not miss, in me it did. Because you're already in support of all things Bush you are willing to mentally fill in all parts missing from the article, I'm not. I'm asking you to pluck from that drivel something intelligent and you can't. Noone can. There is nothing worthwhile in it.

If you believe there are "MANY" points in that article, please quote just one and explain it.

And you still can't provide me with a defense of the Bush agenda as a whole.

I asked you for a defense of the war. I didn't ask you for some sort of emotional whining appeal to my heartstrings about why you really really love it, I asked you to demonstrate to me why it's a good idea.

You couldn't do that.

I guess YOU missed the "Train Yard" analogy, or didn't understand it...

The article doesn't present any arguments for why the war was a good idea, it presents a bunch of false analogies and relies on the reader getting so patriotically emotional that he forgets that it offers nothing of logic or consequense.

I guess you also missed the WWII analogy...

Something tells me you have a hard time understanding analogies.

As for explaining the whole of the Bush agenda, that may be difficult given your obvious lack of understanding of analogies.

Regards,
Gaar

?!

Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194022.html) Says that he was shot.

besides, Isn't alzheimers memory, I didn't know you could die from it?

Alzheimers starts as a "memory" problem, but it affects the ENTIRE brain, including the medulla which controls breathing and heart beat. Once the medulla goes, the person soon after dies.

Sadly, Alzheimers has no cure, few medications can be slowed down and the one vaccine which did work sadly caused fatalities in a certain percentage of cases.

(I'm an MD/PhD student, BTW.)

I'm less crazy about "President Cheney" then I am "President Bush."

I'm less crazy about "President Cheney" then I am "President Bush."

Dick Cheney is President Bush's life insurance policy.

Dick Cheney is President Bush's life insurance policy.
Ain't that the truth. Learned it from his dad.

Ain't that the truth. Learned it from his dad.

LOL. His papa had a really good life insurance policy.

OK, I know most of the perople reading this are bush-haters who think it could only be a bad thing that bush was re-elcted, well here's a shock:
for the most part, I agree with them.

explanation:
When was the last presidential assassination?
Ronald Reagan, 1981
before that?
JFK, 1963
before THAT?
um... well...two "gaps" in my theory, until:
William McKinley, 1901
and before then?
James A Garfield, 1881
And of course,
Abe Lincoln, 1865
What I'm saying here is that besides the two gaps, there has been a succesful presidential assassination approximately every 20 years, with the last one in 1981, By my calculations that puts Bush in line for the bullet next.

Am I right, or am I wrong, help me out here!

Careful. That knocking on your door, is that the SS coming to ship you off to Guantanamo for calling for Bush's assassination? :p

:gundge:
Think of all the lives Bush has cost you Americans in the Iraq war. Okay, that's what, a dozen thousand or so?

1500+. But the Iraqi civilian casualties were over a hundred thousand. Just think. For every American who fell, more than FIFTY civilians were killed.

here's my take on the whole thing...
Sure, I hate Bush. He tried to turn our back yard into an oil drill until everyone flipped out and the area got turned into a protected area by our Senator (yey!). But killing Bush is a very very very very (several more) very bad idea. Cheney would take control and with Bush made a martyr he'd have no reason to by subtle about his attempts at world domination. It would be xenephobia to the max, with arabs, koryeans, russians and chinese all getting the blame somehow for Bush's death.
Now, let's look at this realistically, Clinton may not have been the best president ever, but man did he have charisma. And in bucketfuls too. Bush has... didly squat in that department. I'm ashamed that my president tries to read books upside down and says stupid things like "they miss-underestimated me." But I'm equally ashamed that the best candidate that the Democrats could rustle up was a depressed man who looked like fossilised tree bark. Fact of life-- a new england candidate will NEVER beat a heartland candidate.
Someone pointed out earlier that the majority of people voted for Bush the 2nd time around. This is, I'm sorry to say true. The blame however lies with the Bush administration and the US news services *cough* Fox news *cough* A survey done in Sept 2004 showed that 80% of Americans still thought that Sadam Hussien was directly involved with the Sept. 11th attacks. Bush has everyone's feathers so rustled up about terrorism and war, that they're blind about what he's doing at home. Tax cuts for millionaires? Mis-education about sex and STD's? Banning books? Cutting social security? The view that most people seem to take is that, as long as there's danger from outside the country, there can't be risk from inside. How easily modern media can lead us astray...
What I'm still trying to work out though, is why Bush hasn't been impeached for lying to the world? I mean... Clinton lied about an affair (who WOULDN'T with a wife like Hillary?!). Bush lied about WMD's and got hundreds of thousands of people killed. THe media doesnt really help with this aspect either... "This is terrible! Ten, yes TEN Americna troops have died today in an attack..." compared to... "US troops moved in to secure the area, killing and capturing as many as one hundred rebels..." I'm not being un-patriotic here. By all means, mourn the loss of our troops. But remember that the Iraqis who die are also people with families, and remember that if it weren't for Bush, we'd never be on some damned crusade for oil.

Blair should be shot as well. He's a Bush supporter. He went to war when more than half of his country said no.

Don't shoot Blair, just vote him out. Yay, It's an election year.

Bush was totally wrong about the Irq war. EVRYONE knows that.
Still, no-one has said anything about what should we do with blair, except "See u Jimmy", where u from anyway?

And if Bush were to be impeached, then Cheney would probably take over anyway, so I think we should move the crosshairs over to the left a bit... :sniper: (KIDDING!)

And now, for some real-life recordings from president bush...
This one from 1992 (http://www.kinkendo.co.uk/1992.mp3)
and Another one, from 2k4 (http://www.kinkendo.co.uk/2004.html).

Hope this clarifies some things about mr. bush

OK, I know most of the perople reading this are bush-haters who think it could only be a bad thing that bush was re-elcted, well here's a shock:
for the most part, I agree with them.

explanation:
When was the last presidential assassination?
Ronald Reagan, 1981
before that?
JFK, 1963
before THAT?
um... well...two "gaps" in my theory, until:
William McKinley, 1901
and before then?
James A Garfield, 1881
And of course,
Abe Lincoln, 1865
What I'm saying here is that besides the two gaps, there has been a succesful presidential assassination approximately every 20 years, with the last one in 1981, By my calculations that puts Bush in line for the bullet next.

Am I right, or am I wrong, help me out here!



Just to let you know.. The US Secert Service does not take that lightly.. I'm neither Bush/Gore/Kerry/Dole/Clinton.

But DO NOT do that again.. The US Secert Service does not like that, it is a threat on a leader.

whoa, slow down...

a threat implies i'm going to do something, i'm merely showing that mr.bush is possibly the "next in line" for an assassination, and i'm probably wrong anyways, I think the pattern leads us to beleive that it's going to happen sometime soon, I THINK it's something like 2008-2009, I'm not sure, but, having seen the things in this thread, i have decided bush is definately better than the alternatives...

OK, I know most of the perople reading this are bush-haters who think it could only be a bad thing that bush was re-elcted, well here's a shock:
for the most part, I agree with them.

explanation:
When was the last presidential assassination?
Ronald Reagan, 1981
before that?
JFK, 1963
before THAT?
um... well...two "gaps" in my theory, until:
William McKinley, 1901
and before then?
James A Garfield, 1881
And of course,
Abe Lincoln, 1865
What I'm saying here is that besides the two gaps, there has been a succesful presidential assassination approximately every 20 years, with the last one in 1981, By my calculations that puts Bush in line for the bullet next.

Am I right, or am I wrong, help me out here!

I support you fully on this one!

I am so sickened by you "anti war protesters" or whatever you want to call yourself.
shooting Bush wouldn't solve anything, it would be chaos because so many people in this country are so immature that they think anarchy would actually work. Why can't you get it through your pathetic brains that we are over there to help the Iraqi people who were being tortured by a brutle dictator!!!!!
:sniper:

What do you think he should get then?
http://pbskids.org/lions/words/images/banana.gif

I guess YOU missed the "Train Yard" analogy, or didn't understand it...



I guess you also missed the WWII analogy...

Something tells me you have a hard time understanding analogies.

As for explaining the whole of the Bush agenda, that may be difficult given your obvious lack of understanding of analogies.

Regards,
Gaar

I have no problem understanding analogies. The problem is that people use analogies to demonstrate all sorts of wrong ideas.

I think I already pointed out the one with the food renaming. People argue that it is not a mind numbingly stupid thing for the Republican Congress to rename french fries and french toast because we renamed sourkraut in WWII. People are supposed to think that the analogy connects Germany in WWII with France now, but the analogy is false. We're not at war with France. It would be a proper analogy if we had renamed Swiss Cheese in WWII or renamed some Iraqi dish today.

I don't have trouble understanding analogies, I have trouble accepting bad or false analogies as evidence of that which I already have ample evidence against.

If you think the analogies are so wonderful perhaps you'd like to spell out some of what I've dismissed as nonsense. Bear in mind that analogies as an argument are supposed to accompany facts and evidence in order to illustrate them. An analogy by itself is sophistry. Can you make any sensible arguments out of those analogies, or just point to them and say that you think they make sense and if I disagree it's because I just don't understand?

I don't really expect you to defend the whole of the Bush agenda. I've presented several points that you may wish to defend and have not yet presented any indication that you disagree with. You should not have to rely on analogies to defend them if they make any sense, you just need to tell me what is good about them that outweighs what is bad about them.

Some suggestions would be:
His social security plan.
His 2005 budget proposal
His execution of the war in Iraq
His decision to wage a war in Iraq to the exclusion of North Korea or Darfur

OK, I know most of the perople reading this are bush-haters who think it could only be a bad thing that bush was re-elcted, well here's a shock:
for the most part, I agree with them.

explanation:
When was the last presidential assassination?
Ronald Reagan, 1981
before that?
JFK, 1963
before THAT?
um... well...two "gaps" in my theory, until:
William McKinley, 1901
and before then?
James A Garfield, 1881
And of course,
Abe Lincoln, 1865
What I'm saying here is that besides the two gaps, there has been a succesful presidential assassination approximately every 20 years, with the last one in 1981, By my calculations that puts Bush in line for the bullet next.

Am I right, or am I wrong, help me out here!


The only thing wrong with this theory is...............Cheney would then be president!

1500+. But the Iraqi civilian casualties were over a hundred thousand. Just think. For every American who fell, more than FIFTY civilians were killed.
COUGH
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

I have no problem understanding analogies. The problem is that people use analogies to demonstrate all sorts of wrong ideas.

I think I already pointed out the one with the food renaming. People argue that it is not a mind numbingly stupid thing for the Republican Congress to rename french fries and french toast because we renamed sourkraut in WWII. People are supposed to think that the analogy connects Germany in WWII with France now, but the analogy is false. We're not at war with France. It would be a proper analogy if we had renamed Swiss Cheese in WWII or renamed some Iraqi dish today.

So YOU believe the custom should be saved strictly for Governments that we are actually at War with, while others believe it is alright to include Nations that are complicit with that Nation, so there can't be an honest difference of opinion here? Although I tend to agree with the side that wouldn't want Congress to have anything to do with it... We the "People" may feel free to "change" any customs we see fit, WITHOUT the approval of our Government.

I don't have trouble understanding analogies, I have trouble accepting bad or false analogies as evidence of that which I already have ample evidence against.

No, really it seems as though you just have trouble understanding those that don't "suit" YOUR NEEDS...

If you think the analogies are so wonderful perhaps you'd like to spell out some of what I've dismissed as nonsense. Bear in mind that analogies as an argument are supposed to accompany facts and evidence in order to illustrate them. An analogy by itself is sophistry. Can you make any sensible arguments out of those analogies, or just point to them and say that you think they make sense and if I disagree it's because I just don't understand?

Certainly, I would LOVE the opportunity... But let's not do it here, let's use the Thread that my opinion resides in so as not to "hijack" someone else’s thread...

Let's also address ONE Issue at a time as we do it, ok? I find this makes the discussion much more clear and doesn't afford EITHER side an opportunity to continually "change" the subject. It also makes sure that each Issue is discussed by both sides.

I don't really expect you to defend the whole of the Bush agenda. I've presented several points that you may wish to defend and have not yet presented any indication that you disagree with. You should not have to rely on analogies to defend them if they make any sense, you just need to tell me what is good about them that outweighs what is bad about them.

Some suggestions would be:
His social security plan.
His 2005 budget proposal
His execution of the war in Iraq
His decision to wage a war in Iraq to the exclusion of North Korea or Darfur

Good, because I don't necessarily AGREE with the whole of the Bush Agenda, although as a Debater I "could" support his Agenda just for the hell of it...

As for Subjects, let’s get through this Iraq War stuff and see where it goes from there.

I will Address the first "analogy" in a Post to the "Life During Wartime" Thread where I will be eagerly waiting for YOUR response.

Regards,
Gaar

*snip*

Here ya go Domici, I eagerly await your reply...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8441259#post8441259

Regards,
Gaar

OK, I know most of the perople reading this are bush-haters who think it could only be a bad thing that bush was re-elcted, well here's a shock:
for the most part, I agree with them.

explanation:
When was the last presidential assassination?
Ronald Reagan, 1981
before that?
JFK, 1963
before THAT?
um... well...two "gaps" in my theory, until:
William McKinley, 1901
and before then?
James A Garfield, 1881
And of course,
Abe Lincoln, 1865
What I'm saying here is that besides the two gaps, there has been a succesful presidential assassination approximately every 20 years, with the last one in 1981, By my calculations that puts Bush in line for the bullet next.

Am I right, or am I wrong, help me out here!

First of all, this is sick...second, Reagan was NOT assassinated in 1981. I realize most of you Bush-haters don't quite understand that, since you weren't even alive then.

He GOT Elected PEOPLE!

Something about that YOU don't get?

I'm pretty sure that the MAJORITY of people are SICKENED by these thoughts!

Just because you don't like someone you wish them dead?

I am TRULY OFFENDED by this thread!

HE IS MY PRESIDENT, and you may feel free to criticize him in ANY WAY you see fit!

But when you start wishing someone dead simply because you don't like or disagree with them, then perhaps some need to look "within" to see why they would feel such things.

Regards,
Gaar


Yeah majority... If the majority would jump off the edge of a cliff, would you do it? NO, cause you're not stupid. More than a half voted for Bush? YES, cause they are stupid. Not stupid because they're not intelligent, but because they're manipulated, they have no interest in knowing the truth about their s***** gov and don't want to overuse their brains anyway to understand how this dictator works...

Wishing death is not funny, but in some cases, necessary. Would you prefer Adolf Hitler six feets under the grass or raising an army to invade an inoffensive country? And don't tell me Irak was dangerous with MDWFI (Massive Destruction Weapons From Imagination)

You know what? Hitler was loved by it's citizen, Julius Caesar was, Napoleon Bonaparte was. That makes loving and peacefully nations? NO. Don't think we hate americans because we hate your government, that's not the case. You were only tricked, this is why some of you can't see clearly what's going on.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Does that makes sense? I hope you answered no, cause if you said yes then you agree with a NAZI! Even then, I would see no problem, cause anyway USA elected one...

I don't want to wish him death, he may be a good man that loves its family, but he's got too much convictions thinking he's right. The question is: "Him? or his government? Remove the puppet, or the puppeteers?"

He may be a good man in it's community, he has qualities, but many flaws, and he's just a damn bad president.

Yeah majority... If the majority would jump off the edge of a cliff, would you do it? NO, cause you're not stupid. More than a half voted for Bush? YES, cause they are stupid. Not stupid because they're not intelligent, but because they're manipulated, they have no interest in knowing the truth about their s***** gov and don't want to overuse their brains anyway to understand how this dictator works...

Wishing death is not funny, but in some cases, necessary. Would you prefer Adolf Hitler six feets under the grass or raising an army to invade an inoffensive country? And don't tell me Irak was dangerous with MDWFI (Massive Destruction Weapons From Imagination)

You know what? Hitler was loved by it's citizen, Julius Caesar was, Napoleon Bonaparte was. That makes loving and peacefully nations? NO. Don't think we hate americans because we hate your government, that's not the case. You were only tricked, this is why some of you can't see clearly what's going on.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Does that makes sense? I hope you answered no, cause if you said yes then you agree with a NAZI! Even then, I would see no problem, cause anyway USA elected one...

I don't want to wish him death, he may be a good man that loves its family, but he's got too much convictions thinking he's right. The question is: "Him? or his government? Remove the puppet, or the puppeteers?"

He may be a good man in it's community, he has qualities, but many flaws, and he's just a damn bad president.

So that justifies you wanting him DEAD?!?!

Yeah majority... If the majority would jump off the edge of a cliff, would you do it? NO, cause you're not stupid. More than a half voted for Bush? YES, cause they are stupid. Not stupid because they're not intelligent, but because they're manipulated, they have no interest in knowing the truth about their s***** gov and don't want to overuse their brains anyway to understand how this dictator works...

Wishing death is not funny, but in some cases, necessary. Would you prefer Adolf Hitler six feets under the grass or raising an army to invade an inoffensive country? And don't tell me Irak was dangerous with MDWFI (Massive Destruction Weapons From Imagination)

You know what? Hitler was loved by it's citizen, Julius Caesar was, Napoleon Bonaparte was. That makes loving and peacefully nations? NO. Don't think we hate americans because we hate your government, that's not the case. You were only tricked, this is why some of you can't see clearly what's going on.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Does that makes sense? I hope you answered no, cause if you said yes then you agree with a NAZI! Even then, I would see no problem, cause anyway USA elected one...

I don't want to wish him death, he may be a good man that loves its family, but he's got too much convictions thinking he's right. The question is: "Him? or his government? Remove the puppet, or the puppeteers?"

He may be a good man in it's community, he has qualities, but many flaws, and he's just a damn bad president.
he's not bad, just stupid